Does Windows Still Meet Your Needs?

You may have heard about the latest flare-up in the tech world, when analysts at Gartner last week claimed that Windows is collapsing under its own weight and needs to be rebuilt from scratch. I found this argument and the ensuing online debate amusing for several reasons. First, I had suggested a similar Windows overhaul years ago--long-time UPDATE readers may recall a little gem titled "Maybe It's Time for a New Platform" (See URL below) from April 2002--though that assertion was made in the wake of the enormous security vulnerabilities that dogged Windows over the previous year. More important, perhaps, I think Microsoft has made significant architectural changes to Windows over the ensuing years, obviating my 2002 argument and, quite frankly, making the latest Gartner analysis even more lacking.

I've written a lengthy blog post about this issue (see the URL at the bottom of this article), so I won't rehash the details here. Instead, I'd like to focus this conversation where it belongs, with you, the people who deploy, manage, and support Windows every day. And I'd like to deconstruct Gartner's argument in light of your needs. Tell me if I'm getting this right, please.

Gartner says that Windows' failings shine through in three key areas: legacy support (i.e., compatibility), increased complexity, and hardware compatibility. Hypocritically, the Gartner analysts then suggested that because of evolving demands, Microsoft would be better off creating different versions of the Windows kernel to address different needs, a move that would actually increase complexity while harming compatibility. OK, fine. How does this match what's happening in the real world?

Software CompatibilityWith regards to compatibility, I'd argue that Microsoft's current strategy--the drawn out obsolescence of aging technologies--has been a key driver to Microsoft's success. I don't believe there are many consumers asking that today's Windows runs a 20-year-old version of dBASE. But consumers aren't Microsoft's core market, enterprises are. And what enterprises want, among other things, are clearly defined schedules and backward compatibility. This is a market that doesn't easily part with something that just works. Microsoft has responded to that.

ComplexityMicrosoft is in a uniquely unwinnable position here. That is, no one is asking for new versions of Windows that do less than previous versions. And yet when the company takes big steps forward, as they did with Windows Vista, analysts complain that Windows is "bloated," as if that term actually meant anything in a world where gigabytes of RAM and ginormous hard drives are almost given away in cereal boxes. In the server world, virtualization is taking off because servers are underutilized. But when Microsoft makes a desktop OS that does more, people complain because it uses more resources. They call it bloated.

Now I get that businesses are going to stick with Windows XP for years to come simply because it runs on the now-low-end hardware that they've been using forever, and that makes plenty of sense. But does anyone with Vista experience actually believe that this system is more complex to deploy, manage, and use than XP? Different, sure. More capable, absolutely. But more complex? Really?

Hardware CompatibilityThis one is perhaps the biggest Vista myth: Everyone's heard about the massive compatibility problems that have dogged Microsoft's latest OS. And sure enough, there have been some compatibility issues, just as there were with XP and every major Windows version before that. But here's a reality check, using actual Microsoft support statistics: By the time Vista had been on the market for 100 days, more than 96 percent of all hardware still on the market was compatible with the new OS. And the percentage of compatible hardware has only improved since then. This is far better than the situation was with XP, and, it should be noted, Vista suffered from just one-third the number of security problems as did XP in its first 100 days. I certainly don't recall any Universal Plug and Play (UPnP)-type disasters dogging Vista over the past year.

Different KernelsWhen Gartner argued that Microsoft should create different versions of the Windows kernel to address different applications, it apparently forgot or didn't realize that Windows CE, Windows Mobile, desktop and server Windows versions, Windows Embedded, and other Windows versions all address different markets and all have different kernels. (And I'm guessing they offered up no comparable criticism for Apple's decision to use its OS X OS kernel in, gasp, a smartphone.) They also apparently blacked out on the poor reception Microsoft got when it announced almost 20 different versions of Vista, all designed for different parts of the market. As far as I'm concerned, this is a marketing issue, not a technology discussion. Customers won't care what's going on underneath as long as it works. The reason Vista's different product editions don't work is because the differences between each product are too arbitrary and there are too many choices. The reason Microsoft uses different Windows kernels for different products is that sometimes it makes sense to do so. Sometimes it doesn't.

OK, I don't want this to turn into an ideological debate about Vista. But really, is anyone who implements Microsoft technologies honestly asking for the company to start over from scratch? I think the question is rendered moot by a number of concerns, and I think Gartner is full of hot air. Please tell me if I've got it all wrong.

Discuss this Article 5

Paul;
Whether Vista is good or bad is really irrelevant. Information I have internally and the information I get from talking with my vendors here in Australia is the Vista in the Enterprise is a dead issue at the moment and will remain so for a t least the next 12 months.
Are Vista licenses being sold? You bet, with downgrade rights to XP. Vista may be great for the home market where I have to upgrade my PC at random intervals, but when I have hundreds of production boxes, running core business software that does not like Vista, why would I put Microsoft's latest marketing strategy in place?
I think MS is making itself less of a leader in the space all of the time. The lead by marketing example philosophy is losing them business day after day.
Hardware replacement costs in larger enterprises are staggering, and you may not have noticed yet, but there is a downturn coming, and a big one too. So look to see sales fall off, and look to see XP continue to soldier on in the enterprise for a while yet.
Perhaps by the time things turn around we'll be beyond Vista, and Microsoft will have the next version of the OS ready for us on multi-processor, multi-gig memory, terrabyte hard drive, powered energy sinks.
Or they could go the other way and make something that works, on a new code base, that is light, multi-functional, not a resource hog.
As a long time Windows Admin I would apprecaite it.
Andrew Martin

I agree with your assessment of Gartner's report; they clearly missed the mark. Windows code bloat, however, is real and something that I wrestle with every day as a sysadmin and web app developer.
It's not that I don't want new features. It's that even the most basic activities in Windows can cause a reasonably powerful and cleanly configured system to go into conniptions, thrashing the hard drive, pegging the CPU, and generally flailing. I am always blown away at how instantaneously complex code can execute in ASP or .NET on the same hardware. So why does something as simple as opening a folder window or launching a browser cause my machines to (sometimes) seize up like I've asked them to find the next prime number using only the pagefile? And why does everything seem to run under a single instance of svchost these days?
I know how to build and run a clean system. CHCKDSK, sure. Defrag, of course. Live.com's registry cleaner? Why not. No viruses of trojans in sight. No extra 3rd-party apps or weird utilities installed. Just the basics - plus the countless hotfixes.
In the mid 90s I got so fed up with the old Mac OS 7.x - which was crippled by bloat and instability, and crashed regularly no matter what - that I moved to Windows. Now I am considering moving back.
Neil Laslett

I have tried Vista, and I have comented on it before "Its Pretty and thats about it"
Fact: its a resouce hog.
Fact: It got rid of a lot of conventions used since win 3.1
Fact: Alot of my clients have had me rebuild there new PC's that came with vista with XP home since they cant get alot of there software to work with it.
Fact: All the advantages that Vista has over XP I do not see why they could not by turned into a Service pack and loaded onto XP. Becuase the only advantages from my standpoint that Vista has over XP are Wireless single sign-on, incressed wireless security, and the new user permisions that would allow a non admin login to run certain programs. The new filesystem that was sopose to be used with vista was scrapped before the first RC was reaslesed and other then the fact that the PC version of HALO 2 only runs on Vista I see no reason for anyone to upgrade.
Look its going to come down to this, Home users are either going to do one of three things, 1 keep there XP home systems, swtich to Ubutu Linux or Mac with VM ware for there Win apps. Network or bussiness users guess what I see a lot of TS servers going into play with thin clients, but VIsta is not the answer, it was built broken and I dont think as IT professionals we should accept it.

Paul - I'd have to say that (1) Gartner has such little credibilty in predicting the future that many folks probably ignoring this; and (2) they continue their quest to bash M$ at every turn, and since this is negative (i.e. controversial) it sells.
I think what "bloatware" is valid in the sense the client O/S is evlolving into "everything but the kitchen sink" install, while server is going opposite - modular w/only required pieces installed. Frankly, my next laptop upgrade I will install Win2008 and bypass the unneeded Vista components.
As for the compatibility issues, more marketing than real. And lets not forget 3rd party vendors hands in that - those who did not want to create patches for old software so Vista "broke" their apps. But again, press loves that and it sells more than "Vista arrived, no problems".
Bottom line, you are right (finally ;) ), Garnter wrong (as usual).